Resolved: On balance, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the United States.
The April Public Forum topic deals with the topic of whether or not unions of government employee laborers have a net positive impact on the United States.

Before examining both sides of the resolution, let's break down some basic terms.
In this context, a "union" is generally understood to be "an organization of employees formed to bargain with the employer; "you have to join the union in order to get a job". When employees are part of unions, the union negotiates on behalf of the collective group of employees/union members and to negotiate salaries/overtime and benefits (health care, vacation time, pensions, etc). A "pension" is essentially a salary that an employee draws for the rest of his or her life once he or she retires. The resolution specifically refers to pubic employee labor unions. The difference is that employees of a private company know that they can only ask for so much in wages/benefits or those will start to threaten the viability of the company. Government employees, however, can ask for almost anything that they can get, knowing that the bill will simply have to be paid by the tax payers. The issue of public employee union wages and benefits being payed by taxpayers is what gives rise to this resolution. A declining economy/tax base is giving rise to growing government deficits that are being compounded by large obligations on the part of governments to pay (high) government employee union wages/benefits. This growing fiscal gap is increasing animosity toward public employee unions, and it is what likely gave rise to this topic and makes it timely. The final important concept/phrase in the resolution is "on the United States."
My partner and I stand in firm negation to the resolution.

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.
I will now present my points.

First, while the private sector might offer better upward mobility and perhaps better benefits while employed, the private sector doesn't get pensions, and the public sector does. The increase in public sector pensions over the last several years has made it very difficult to justify spending as much as we do on government employees. Further, the federal government is underfunding the pension plans because there is very little money reserved for them. The Pew Center on the States recently released a survey detailing the pension plans of the public sector in all fifty states. As of 2008, states had $2.4 trillion to meet $3.4 trillion in promised pension, health care and other post-retirement benefits, according to the report. http://www.foxnews.com...
Second, we should not support anything that advocates the taxpayers spending more money in a time like this. Right now, there is no way that these unions could have net positive impact on the entire United States, because the majority of Americans don't have the money to be pouring into someone Else's job. As the benefits and salaries for public sector employees increase, so do taxes. And right now, no one can afford that.

Third, public sector labor unions are adding to the corruption of government. Public sector labor unions gave to the Obama campaign in overwhelming amounts, as they have with all democratic candidates for president for decades. Many argue that this only buys loyalty to the labor unions and that these politicians are simply becoming hands of the public sector labor unions. You can argue that having such huge influence in elections is a threat to democracy and decreases the voting power of the average citizen.

Fourth, any increase in benefits that is granted to the public sector because of the fight given by their unions will only increase the deficit. If we choose not to increase the deficit, the only thing that will happen is a cut to services. In order to satisfy the desires of unions for higher pay, states might have to cut down on welfare benefits or state provided health care. None of which is fair to private citizens.

Second, we should not support anything that advocates the taxpayers spending more money in a time like this.

Not really, since we can get a less chance of getting fired and saving our job, it will be worth it to spend the money. Think about it, if you pay to not have you fired you can make money but if you get fired, you lose our job and money. And since finding another job is pretty hard then you probably still want to pay the money

Third, public sector labor unions are adding to the corruption of government.

first of all, the government made the union I believe and the union cannot corrupt the government, if they can, how?

Fourth, any increase in benefits that is granted to the public sector because of the fight given by their unions will only increase the deficit.

my opponent himself has clearly stated that if we do not increase the deficit, then they will have to cut the services but since the U.S. has covered a lot of deficits, why cant they deal with this one? explain.

I thank my opponent for his timely response.
I would now explain my points.

A union is defined as an organization of employees formed to bargain with the employer.
Positive shall be defined as helpful in the meeting of needs.
Impact is to produce an effect or change in.

Argument 1.My first argument pertains to the tax increase. First and foremost, we must address the impact labor unions have had on taxpayers. Government salaries and benefits are more times than not paid for by taxes. As these unions call for more and more dues, taxes will severely increase. Ed Lanky writes that "Public-sector unions have amassed great power to extract taxpayer dollars from politicians." US taxpayer dollars have been used for the unions to get whatever they can. To make up for the increase in demand for funding, our government isn't going to mess with the federal budget deficit. Rather, the government is going to increase taxes in states to compensate for the rise of needs. At the point where unions are the cause of a recurring issue with US citizens, it is obviously harming an important aspect to the US more than helping it.

Argument 2.My second argument has to do with deficit spending. After we review the issue with where the taxpayer money IS going, we must see where the taxpayer money isn't going. If unions are taking citizens' tax money, it is not going into solving the issue of our budget deficit. The imbalance between pensions and wages is resulting in higher deficits and, when necessary, cuts in government services. Since most states cannot run deficits, cuts in services or tax increases become inevitable. "The percentage of federal civil servants making more than $100,000 a year jumped from 14 percent to 19 percent during the first year and a half of the recession, according to USA Today. At the beginning of the downturn, the Transportation Department had one person making $170,000 or more a year; now it has 1,690 making that." All of that money going to these unions is not going into solving one of the most important issue on President Obama's mind, the economy. If citizens' money is not going into what is necessary, there will never be a way to solve it. The unions are distracting our funding from an imperative task, which obviously is more of a negative impact than a positive impact.

Argument 3.The third argument is specific to political corruption. Government employee labor unions donate sums of money to political parties that will support them. As we have established, taxpayers money is what funds these unions, so not only is being distracted from a significant cause, it is being put into the pockets of political candidates. Logically, more funding means more advertising, more advertising means more publicity and more times than not, more publicity means more votes. This leads to a never-ending cycle of corruption, a union being put in the pocket of a potential leader. "Unions contributed up to 400 million dollars to Democrats in 2008 and engage in skulduggery to advance their aims." Says the Pew Research Center. What is next for these unions? If this corruption goes on, it is obviously not going to have a positive effect.

Conclusion: In conclusion, these labor unions have not had a positive impact on the US as a whole, and are not going to if they continue the work they are keeping up now. As the negative we are not required to offer alternatives, but we are required to expose the truth and this should be known to all. The main point here, judge, is to prove that the money you pay each year goes to waste by these unions.

1.Government employee labor unions helps employees get what they deserve and get treated fairly.

2.Boosts workers work.People can be not paid well even though they worked very hard on something.

3. Labor Unions will provide government employees with job security

Ok,now back to my first point, Government employee labor unions helps employees get what they deserve and get treated fairly.

With government Employee labor unions the employee can get what they deserve. For example, take Joe here, he is a firefighter who works harder than any other of his co-workers but his co-workers still gets paid more, now is this fair? NO. But with labor unions they will fight for Joe's rights and this is not just Joe but other people as well and according to the equal rights, every man has equal rights thus they have no rights to treat him unfairly.

On to my second point

2.Government employee labor unions boosts workers work.

Most likely people get motivated to work like Joe here because the labor unions are fighting for their rights. Since there are labor unions, the workers will be happy they get a raise so they start to work really good making not only the company happy but the employer as well. And because they work harder the company can support more customers for the company so the company will bloom. With this said, this all leads to a better economy, considering how our economy is currently in the toilets right now, I would think that increasing the economy would be a good idea.

And finally, on to my third and final point.

3. Labor Unions will provide government employees with job security

Since labor Unions fight to keep their jobs, so less employees will lose their jobs, which, as stated in point #1, will decrease the United States' total debt. If labor unions were not to exist in the United States, the unemployment rate will soar; citizens will develop insecurity in the government, which means more people will practice civil disobedience, which is protesting within the government. But as I will say, with labor unions, government employees will not lose their jobs, considering how hard it is to find another job with labor unions.

And before I will end this round I would like to say my statistics.

Statistics: 98% of union contracts and arguments are solved without strikes. A poll taken in the United States shows that 58% of un-employed people would join a labor union.

His first point was Government employee labor unions helps employees get what they deserve and get treated fairly. The worker who is in the union will take advantage of the benefits that the unions provide. The worker will most likely sack off and do not their work but still get paid the same or higher than an average worker. So this is not only unfair to the hard working workers and is also unfair to take money away from the government. Our currently debt is 12.5 trillion dollars and we will have to pay 200 million every year just for these unions. So how is that good for the United States? We could've spend the money on something better like improve our military. In my opponents point he give the example of how the labor union is helping, but that is only one example that is just made up. There are tons more states that are having trouble with these unions. So the government employee labor unions not only hurt us but will also hurt the workers.

His second point was Government employee labor unions boosts workers work.
Perhaps accordingly, Gallup records significant increases in the August 2009 Work and Education survey compared with August 2006 in sentiment that unions have a negative effect on companies where workers are organized, and on the economy generally. The percentage saying unions mostly hurt the companies where workers are organized has risen from 39% in 2006 to 46% in the latest poll. As a result, Americans are now evenly divided over whether unions mostly help or mostly hurt these companies, whereas in all previous measures the balance of opinion was positive. There has been an even larger jump in the percentage saying labor unions mostly hurt the U.S. economy, from 36% in 2006 to 51% today. This is the first time since the question was established in 1997 that more Americans have said unions hurt rather than help the economy. Americans' general concerns about the current state of the economy could certainly be a factor in these more negative views of unions, in addition to specific perceptions about unions. Americans living in union households and those in non-union households have sharply different assessments of unions' impact on each of the four dimensions mentioned above. However, the widest gap is in perceptions of unions' impact on the companies where workers are unionized. Of adults living in union households (representing 18% of all U.S. adults), 7 in 10 believe unions help the companies; only 39% of residents living in non-union households agree. So the economy will fail (it is already in the dumps), it will not to any good to our economy.

His third and last point was Labor Unions will provide government employees with job security.
As I already explained in my rebut to his first point that the worker will take advantage in their work and the labor unions are just fighting to keep them in the job when they don't deserve it. So this is clearly unfair.

My opponent failed to rebut most of my points while I have rebutted all of his.

First, while the private sector might offer better upward mobility and perhaps better benefits while employed, the private sector doesn't get pensions, and the public sector does.

Please state the proof of where you have gotten this information because according to my information, the private sectors and the public sectors is a problem to the economy. While this is bad, my opponent had stated it as if though it was a good thing and they want it for private sectors so, I shall say, I disagree.

Second, we should not support anything that advocates the taxpayers spending more money in a time like this.

Not really, since we can get a less chance of getting fired and saving our job, it will be worth it to spend the money. Think about it, if you pay to not have you fired you can make money but if you get fired, you lose our job and money. And since finding another job is pretty hard then you probably still want to pay the money

Third, public sector labor unions are adding to the corruption of government.

first of all, the government made the union I believe and the union cannot corrupt the government, if they can, how?

Fourth, any increase in benefits that is granted to the public sector because of the fight given by their unions will only increase the deficit.

my opponent himself has clearly stated that if we do not increase the deficit, then they will have to cut the services but since the U.S. has covered a lot of deficits, why cant they deal with this one? explain.

And before I am done, I would like to state that my opponent did not give me any of the proof I have asked when I have clearly rebutted all of his points and he did not answer all of my question on my rebuttals, therefore, please vote for the pro side of this debate. Thank You

You also have to recognize that in states like New York and Rhode Island where the public sector unionization rates are higher the quality of education is also higher. Which is from the stronger teachers unions in these states.

Also Government Employee unions function almost exactly the same as unions in private companies. Also Keep in mind that Government employees are themselves taxpayers, as are their friends and families. They know that the government doesn't have infinite resources. Historically Labor Unions in Private companies have caused exponentially more problems that government employee unions. For example Teachers unions; Teachers are not paid all that well considering the amount of work they do. Plainly they are not "abusing the system".